Natural selection, we are enabling our species to maximize its population and survive regardless of obstacles. That way we can benefit from intellectual contributions of everyone (even those who may have a physical problem). Plus, we also want any good genes the person may have (for example, maybe the person has a bad heart, but maybe they also have an awesome improved kidney gene).
In a couple generations we may be able to do gene therapy and eliminate any detrimental genes.
So yes, our curing people of medical conditions is part of nature.. just as natural as the development of language and teamwork ability.
So I don't have to run around trying to do complicated crap. Seriously, if I knew what my limits or capabilities are, I could work with 'em instead of doing things the wrong way. For example, maybe I wouldn't have bothered taking calculus and done something else instead.
The italicised quote in the parent article was a quote of what was appeared in wikipedia for 132 days some time ago. I added the bold part for emphasis. Also, the parent posting should not be taken seriously or used as a basis of any factual or speculative information of any kind whatsoever.
Furthermore, my "personal interpretation" only refers to how I would interpret what that particular quote is trying to say. It doesn't mean anyone believes, or should believe, the quote.
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
My personal interpretation of the above quote is that "someone at some point suspected he was involved".
If someone says "man, that backslashdot guy was thought to be an idiot by some people". Sure this obvious and clear falsehood wreaks of deliberate libel, but I'm not going to run around having a hissy fit and sue unless someone were to say "that backslashdot guy, he's an idiot cause I saw him say something stupid".
What happened to the first amendment? Is anyone allowed to say?
Ok, so only those who have something to hide have somethng to fear - yeah right - but it's a significant step towards the Brave New World
DNA testing assumes people don't frame others for crimes. So maybe we'll catch criminals, but don't expect it to reduce the amount of innocent people convicted of crime due to overzealous prosecutors and a public that screams for revenge.
Psychos and boring people are the only ones who don't want privacy.
The following will rant is going to get marked troll, because that's usually what the painful truth gets. And after all what I am about to say is Ad Hominem etc.
I havent read the article. I can tell you in advance it's going to tell us what we already knew. The guy is a fool. I never read anything on his site that wasn't obvious that everyone knew. Yet he that he offers new insights or vision. A typical example.. P2P backup, he thought that was some sort of new idea of his when there were companies pre-existing that were already doing/trying to do what he was saying. Furthermore his "predictions for the next year" that he does every year are so damn obvious.. anyone who reads any sort of tech news would be able to make them. Yet he thinks he's a genius for making predictions, half of which he read elsewhere.
Here's what. What happens when someone claims rights on PNG too after everyone starts using it? What we have happening here is the patent board is unable to understand prior art and granting patents on obvious and pre-existing technology.
The issue is not this particular patent, but the issue is blocking other corporations and lawyer clusters from trying to gain broadly worded patents that incorporate pre existing technology from obscure sources so they can make money.
Get this patent overturned. It's extremely important to get these ridiculous technology stifling unoriginal patents overturned.
Where the hell is EFF on this? Pubpatents is getting my money this year and I recommend you guys donate there as well if you are into donating to tech freedom.
If a disease is too lethal it will kill off its host before it has time to spread significantly
False. This is not always true. Virulence is not always tied to onslaught of symptoms. Ever heard of disease causing agents that don't kill the host until many years later, yet can spread prior to the symptomatic phase. An example of this would be mad cow disease and HIV. A more virulent form that spread as easily as say, the common cold would have decades to spread until detection.. by which time the entire (or large segment) of the population would be infected. Sure this may result in the agent extincting itself along with humans, but remember viruses/bacteria don't have the intelligence to predict/figure that out (until it's too late). A mutation that effects delayed lethality followed by a mutation that improves virulence can happen that makes all this possible. Imagine the catastrophe that would happen if HIV was spread with the common cold vector (expect a 60% decline in population over 15 years). HIV, mad cow etc... none of these were detected until patients with symptoms showed up in clinics.
And besides, for me to be concerned about a virus, I don't care that it's not a threat to civilization.. I care if it's a threat to me.
I asked this on slashdot a long time ago.. so let me repeat.. Why not get a business methods patent on laws? Think about it.. imagine if someone had patented the idea for Social Security or Medicare.. she'd be rolling in cash. So next time you think of a great idea for the country, make sure you patent it before you tell anyone else or suggest it online. And if you can't sell it to the Democrats or Republicans, maybe there'll be a foreign government that would be interested.
All about innovation. Shit i should have patented this very idea.
You are assuming energy consumption and "carbon emmission" is the only means of polluting.
You are much more likely to get clean water in a rich country than a poor one. The USA doesn't deplete its forests like Brazil or Liberia. Nor does the USA pollute her water sources as much as India, Mexico, or China. Fact is, when people are rich they are more capable of enforcing "Not In My Backyard". Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands, Japan etc. do not pollute as much as China or India.
If you believe that poor countries have cleaner rivers and less deorestation and their people have better access to sanitation and clean water... please do some research.. here's a link to get you started:
Rather than trying to save energy, we should find ways to produce more energy cheaply without causing pollution. Expensive energy is the root cause of global poverty and reduced quality of life. Cover the deserts with solar panels.. make energy dirt cheap. Energy assists in industrial manufacture of goods. A drop in energy prices has massive payoffs for global quality of life.
The supposed environmentalist "final solution" is to eliminate people.. they want to tell other humans how many kids to have, and force them to remain in poverty. They like poverty because they fear damaging the environment. They also fear some sort of massive human population explosion when there is no evidence to support population expansion in rich countries/people except via immigration. And that's assuming that population expansion is a bad thing.
The environmentalists will jump on me for saying that we should produce more energy... but only when a country is rich and the people have decent quality of life will it have the means to stop polluting. Otherwise we will be in a permanent state of "resource depletion" and global poverty. Poor countries today have no choice but to practice innefficient farming techniques and even worse they contribute massively to deforestation because of the lack of sustainable agriculture techniques.
He's always "months away" from revealing this invention. Can't he come up with a newer scam?? Even what he's found is real, I don't like his secretive methods.
Look the fact is, it's very easy to come up with a non disprovable theory in physics. If I say that "I have just found that Eintein's theory is wrong.. it is possible to create a wormhole by boiling a carrot in cat piss and one other secret ingredient...without allowing others to reproduce the experiment how can this be disproved?" Although, the only way I could be right is if Einstein is wrong.. it's not a problem because I have just stated that "Einstein is wrong".. You can call me a kook.. but the only way to disprove me is to provide 100% proof that Einstein is correct everywhere. Which is quite frankly impossible because physics is not like mathematics where axiomatic proofs are possible.
Well Ok, One story is fine..and for all we know he might actually be telling the truth or at least believing it..and quite frankly I hate censorship and support freedom of speech.. but this guy keeps reappearing.. What about the other kooks..no equal time? At least make it comedic and original not repetition! If I was an electric universe theorist or a cold fusion proponent I'd be getting pretty pissed off..
Learn some tax laws. I would expect such ignorance only if you never donated any money to charity.
You can't gain any money by giving money to charity. All tax breaks do is lessen the amount you pay to the government!!
If you earned $1 billion and then give $100 million to charity, the government sees it as though you earned $900 million. So you pay tax as though you earned $900 million. That's all!
You gain the satisfaction that the government isn't wasting your money and that it is going to something you believe in.
And no there is no way to gain more money by traversing tax brackets (go plug the numbers in a tax program if you dont understand tax laws). And even if there was (which is impossible but many fools believe it), Bill Gates is firmly in the top tax bracket (over $150 thousand dollars income) no matter how many billions he gives away.
Ok, how much money do you think he makes in Africa?? Over $258 million?? LOL! Sorry but piracy is rampant there. It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
"Mother Teresa liked feeling important and only helped people because it made herself feel good and needed"
Most of the time when people believe such things, it is because they themselves are unable to feel charitable to anyone or anything. So they cannot understand when others do something charitable. All they do is throw stones rather than replicate or surpass the charity they criticize.
After all, who wants someone they hate to be better than themselves?
Bill Gates believes in helping people, and he has given a large portion of his wealth to helping these countries get out of poverty and disease. This is fact. The "Return On Investment" on helping Africa is multiple decades, long after he's dead. And even believing that Africans can be productive enough to provide a ROI to Microsoft is itself above and beyond everyone else's "Africa is a basket case" attitude on Africa.
What someone does in business, however shrewd, does not mean they don't genuinely feel for those who are suffering.
No one can indemnify you from delusional lawsuits, unless they have the spare money to fend it off or to succeed well enough to take back their court costs from the plaintiff. MySQL developers just don't have that kind of spare money.
That's fine. I understand that. Then don't enter into agreements (especially with known scum with a dark history of suing _users_ of GPL software).
If I can't afford my rent, I dont go gambling with other people's credit cards in known swindling casinos.
I am choosing Oracle over MySQL. Why? Because SCO is still refusing to sheild MySQL users from lawsuits that directly result from this deal with SCO. Note: I am not asking to be protected from whacko frivolous lawsuits, I am asking that MySQL protect us from a lawsuit by SCO that results from SCO making the allegation that MySQL placed commercial SCO code in MySQL in violation of _this_ agreement.
If MySQL is super confident that this deal cannot possibly result in any lawsuit to us, they can easily indemnify us from SCO lawsuits.
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, COMMERCIAL version of the popular MySQL database for SCO OpenServer 6"
Clearly there is wiggle room for them to file a delusional lawsuit styled after the IBM lawsuit claiming that MySQL used SCO resources and knowledge to "improve the GPL version". Stop laughing, this is what they are saying about linux. And when that goes down in flames, they'll need another whacko lawsuit to pump their stock up one last desperate time so the execs can completely sell off their remaining shares.
Once more, if MySQL is super confident that this deal cannot possibly result in any lawsuit to us, they can should have no problem sheilding us from SCO lawsuits.
so if there are SNP mutations that only have a 1 in 270 or lesser chance of being present..it's not going to be in their Map. You could be walking around with an SNP they missed cause the mutation happened recently (unique to you or maybe your grandparents etc) or is rare or whatever.
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
Slashdot Mirror
That's what they're doing.
.. just as natural as the development of language and teamwork ability.
Natural selection, we are enabling our species to maximize its population and survive regardless of obstacles. That way we can benefit from intellectual contributions of everyone (even those who may have a physical problem). Plus, we also want any good genes the person may have (for example, maybe the person has a bad heart, but maybe they also have an awesome improved kidney gene).
In a couple generations we may be able to do gene therapy and eliminate any detrimental genes.
So yes, our curing people of medical conditions is part of nature
Retain for two, retain forever.
So I don't have to run around trying to do complicated crap. Seriously, if I knew what my limits or capabilities are, I could work with 'em instead of doing things the wrong way. For example, maybe I wouldn't have bothered taking calculus and done something else instead.
The italicised quote in the parent article was a quote of what was appeared in wikipedia for 132 days some time ago. I added the bold part for emphasis. Also, the parent posting should not be taken seriously or used as a basis of any factual or speculative information of any kind whatsoever.
Furthermore, my "personal interpretation" only refers to how I would interpret what that particular quote is trying to say. It doesn't mean anyone believes, or should believe, the quote.
I like John Seigenthaler.
Oh yeah, I have no money so do not sue me.
"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
My personal interpretation of the above quote is that "someone at some point suspected he was involved".
If someone says "man, that backslashdot guy was thought to be an idiot by some people". Sure this obvious and clear falsehood wreaks of deliberate libel, but I'm not going to run around having a hissy fit and sue unless someone were to say "that backslashdot guy, he's an idiot cause I saw him say something stupid".
What happened to the first amendment? Is anyone allowed to say?
Ok, so only those who have something to hide have somethng to fear - yeah right - but it's a significant step towards the Brave New World
DNA testing assumes people don't frame others for crimes. So maybe we'll catch criminals, but don't expect it to reduce the amount of innocent people convicted of crime due to overzealous prosecutors and a public that screams for revenge.
Psychos and boring people are the only ones who don't want privacy.
The following will rant is going to get marked troll, because that's usually what the painful truth gets. And after all what I am about to say is Ad Hominem etc.
.. P2P backup, he thought that was some sort of new idea of his when there were companies pre-existing that were already doing/trying to do what he was saying. Furthermore his "predictions for the next year" that he does every year are so damn obvious .. anyone who reads any sort of tech news would be able to make them. Yet he thinks he's a genius for making predictions, half of which he read elsewhere.
I havent read the article. I can tell you in advance it's going to tell us what we already knew. The guy is a fool. I never read anything on his site that wasn't obvious that everyone knew. Yet he that he offers new insights or vision. A typical example
Here's what. What happens when someone claims rights on PNG too after everyone starts using it? What we have happening here is the patent board is unable to understand prior art and granting patents on obvious and pre-existing technology.
The issue is not this particular patent, but the issue is blocking other corporations and lawyer clusters from trying to gain broadly worded patents that incorporate pre existing technology from obscure sources so they can make money.
Get this patent overturned. It's extremely important to get these ridiculous technology stifling unoriginal patents overturned.
Where the hell is EFF on this? Pubpatents is getting my money this year and I recommend you guys donate there as well if you are into donating to tech freedom.
Maybe we can grow steak this way too .. in large vats. Get rid of the animal rights issues that way.
Yumm.
If a disease is too lethal it will kill off its host before it has time to spread significantly
.. by which time the entire (or large segment) of the population would be infected. Sure this may result in the agent extincting itself along with humans, but remember viruses/bacteria don't have the intelligence to predict/figure that out (until it's too late). A mutation that effects delayed lethality followed by a mutation that improves virulence can happen that makes all this possible. Imagine the catastrophe that would happen if HIV was spread with the common cold vector (expect a 60% decline in population over 15 years). HIV, mad cow etc. .. none of these were detected until patients with symptoms showed up in clinics.
.. I care if it's a threat to me.
False. This is not always true. Virulence is not always tied to onslaught of symptoms. Ever heard of disease causing agents that don't kill the host until many years later, yet can spread prior to the symptomatic phase. An example of this would be mad cow disease and HIV. A more virulent form that spread as easily as say, the common cold would have decades to spread until detection
And besides, for me to be concerned about a virus, I don't care that it's not a threat to civilization
I asked this on slashdot a long time ago .. so let me repeat .. Why not get a business methods patent on laws? Think about it .. imagine if someone had patented the idea for Social Security or Medicare .. she'd be rolling in cash. So next time you think of a great idea for the country, make sure you patent it before you tell anyone else or suggest it online. And if you can't sell it to the Democrats or Republicans, maybe there'll be a foreign government that would be interested.
All about innovation. Shit i should have patented this very idea.
Yes, and even worse, it uses up the wind.
You are assuming energy consumption and "carbon emmission" is the only means of polluting.
... please do some research .. here's a link to get you started:
N VIRONMENT/EXTEEI/0,,contentMDK:20487946~menuPK:118 7800~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:408050,00 .html
You are much more likely to get clean water in a rich country than a poor one. The USA doesn't deplete its forests like Brazil or Liberia. Nor does the USA pollute her water sources as much as India, Mexico, or China. Fact is, when people are rich they are more capable of enforcing "Not In My Backyard". Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands, Japan etc. do not pollute as much as China or India.
If you believe that poor countries have cleaner rivers and less deorestation and their people have better access to sanitation and clean water
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/E
Rather than trying to save energy, we should find ways to produce more energy cheaply without causing pollution. Expensive energy is the root cause of global poverty and reduced quality of life. Cover the deserts with solar panels.. make energy dirt cheap. Energy assists in industrial manufacture of goods. A drop in energy prices has massive payoffs for global quality of life.
.. they want to tell other humans how many kids to have, and force them to remain in poverty. They like poverty because they fear damaging the environment. They also fear some sort of massive human population explosion when there is no evidence to support population expansion in rich countries/people except via immigration. And that's assuming that population expansion is a bad thing.
... but only when a country is rich and the people have decent quality of life will it have the means to stop polluting. Otherwise we will be in a permanent state of "resource depletion" and global poverty. Poor countries today have no choice but to practice innefficient farming techniques and even worse they contribute massively to deforestation because of the lack of sustainable agriculture techniques.
The supposed environmentalist "final solution" is to eliminate people
The environmentalists will jump on me for saying that we should produce more energy
He's always "months away" from revealing this invention. Can't he come up with a newer scam?? Even what he's found is real, I don't like his secretive methods.
4 5.shtml?tid=14
.. it is possible to create a wormhole by boiling a carrot in cat piss and one other secret ingredient ...without allowing others to reproduce the experiment how can this be disproved?" Although, the only way I could be right is if Einstein is wrong .. it's not a problem because I have just stated that "Einstein is wrong" .. You can call me a kook .. but the only way to disprove me is to provide 100% proof that Einstein is correct everywhere. Which is quite frankly impossible because physics is not like mathematics where axiomatic proofs are possible.
..and for all we know he might actually be telling the truth or at least believing it ..and quite frankly I hate censorship and support freedom of speech .. but this guy keeps reappearing .. What about the other kooks ..no equal time? At least make it comedic and original not repetition! If I was an electric universe theorist or a cold fusion proponent I'd be getting pretty pissed off ..
Link to the 1999 story..
http://science.slashdot.org/science/99/12/22/1092
Look the fact is, it's very easy to come up with a non disprovable theory in physics. If I say that "I have just found that Eintein's theory is wrong
Well Ok, One story is fine
Learn some tax laws. I would expect such ignorance only if you never donated any money to charity.
You can't gain any money by giving money to charity. All tax breaks do is lessen the amount you pay to the government!!
If you earned $1 billion and then give $100 million to charity, the government sees it as though you earned $900 million. So you pay tax as though you earned $900 million. That's all!
You gain the satisfaction that the government isn't wasting your money and that it is going to something you believe in.
And no there is no way to gain more money by traversing tax brackets (go plug the numbers in a tax program if you dont understand tax laws). And even if there was (which is impossible but many fools believe it), Bill Gates is firmly in the top tax bracket (over $150 thousand dollars income) no matter how many billions he gives away.
Ok, how much money do you think he makes in Africa?? Over $258 million?? LOL! Sorry but piracy is rampant there. It's possible to suspect everyone of having ulterior motives no matter what they do. If you look with hateful, bitter, and cynical eyes, you can make yourself see selfishness in everyone's actions.
"Mother Teresa liked feeling important and only helped people because it made herself feel good and needed"
Most of the time when people believe such things, it is because they themselves are unable to feel charitable to anyone or anything. So they cannot understand when others do something charitable. All they do is throw stones rather than replicate or surpass the charity they criticize.
After all, who wants someone they hate to be better than themselves?
Bill Gates believes in helping people, and he has given a large portion of his wealth to helping these countries get out of poverty and disease. This is fact. The "Return On Investment" on helping Africa is multiple decades, long after he's dead. And even believing that Africans can be productive enough to provide a ROI to Microsoft is itself above and beyond everyone else's "Africa is a basket case" attitude on Africa.
What someone does in business, however shrewd, does not mean they don't genuinely feel for those who are suffering.
No one can indemnify you from delusional lawsuits, unless they have the spare money to fend it off or to succeed well enough to take back their court costs from the plaintiff. MySQL developers just don't have that kind of spare money.
That's fine. I understand that. Then don't enter into agreements (especially with known scum with a dark history of suing _users_ of GPL software).
If I can't afford my rent, I dont go gambling with other people's credit cards in known swindling casinos.
I am choosing Oracle over MySQL. Why? Because SCO is still refusing to sheild MySQL users from lawsuits that directly result from this deal with SCO. Note: I am not asking to be protected from whacko frivolous lawsuits, I am asking that MySQL protect us from a lawsuit by SCO that results from SCO making the allegation that MySQL placed commercial SCO code in MySQL in violation of _this_ agreement.
0 37 ):
If MySQL is super confident that this deal cannot possibly result in any lawsuit to us, they can easily indemnify us from SCO lawsuits.
According to SCO's press release ( http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=172
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, COMMERCIAL version of the popular MySQL database for SCO OpenServer 6"
Clearly there is wiggle room for them to file a delusional lawsuit styled after the IBM lawsuit claiming that MySQL used SCO resources and knowledge to "improve the GPL version". Stop laughing, this is what they are saying about linux. And when that goes down in flames, they'll need another whacko lawsuit to pump their stock up one last desperate time so the execs can completely sell off their remaining shares.
Once more, if MySQL is super confident that this deal cannot possibly result in any lawsuit to us, they can should have no problem sheilding us from SCO lawsuits.
oh, nevermind .. it's just a scratch.
so if there are SNP mutations that only have a 1 in 270 or lesser chance of being present ..it's not going to be in their Map. You could be walking around with an SNP they missed cause the mutation happened recently (unique to you or maybe your grandparents etc) or is rare or whatever.
How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.
0 37 [sco.com]
It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.
That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=172
From the SCO press release:
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.
0 37 [sco.com]
It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.
That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=172
From the SCO press release:
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.
0 37
It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.
That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=172
From the SCO press release:
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"